• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Frederic Grare"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

How Pakistan Moves Against Taliban Could Complicate Afghan Ties

Pakistan’s military is set to launch a major military operation in North Waziristan, which will have a significant impact on the country’s relationship with Afghanistan.

Link Copied
By Frederic Grare
Published on Mar 7, 2014

Source: CNN

Pakistan’s military is set to launch a major military operation in North Waziristan, AP reported this week, after weeks of hesitation over its strategy of negotiating with Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Yet although the expected operation follows the killing of 23 Pakistani soldiers last month by a Taliban faction, it seems likely to have been motivated by something more than a desire to retaliate and coerce the TTP into talks.

Whatever the motivation, it will have a significant impact on the country’s relationship with its weaker neighbor: Afghanistan.

In early 2012, Pakistan’s Foreign Office publicly declared a “strategic shift” in its thinking on Afghanistan, and began promoting its own version of an inclusive reconciliation process, as well as actively reaching out to elements of the Northern Alliance. Islamabad adopted this new policy after concluding that its strategy of supporting the Taliban alone was unlikely to produce a “friendly” Afghanistan (in other words, one under close Pakistani influence) because the Taliban is, for now at least, simply not capable of taking the reins of power on its own.

More broadly, the shift seems to reflect a perception in Pakistan that the Taliban are no longer a reliable proxy, although Islamabad appears to still believe that the Afghan Taliban would be able to secure Pakistani interests in Kabul. Now, Pakistan appears to be trying to broker a power-sharing agreement in which its proxies would dominate the east and the south of Afghanistan in exchange for their non-interference in the areas dominated by other ethnic groups. A national unity government that emerged from such an agreement would not be strong enough to prevent Pakistani maneuvering in Afghanistan.

According to Pakistani officials and analysts alike, the main rationale for the shift is domestic security concerns, including significant worries over the TTP. Since the TTP operates from the FATA and Afghanistan, Islamabad worries that the movement may collude with the Afghan Taliban. But this introduces a major contradiction in Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy as it will only exacerbate the very threats it is trying to eliminate. After all, if the Afghan Taliban is frustrated in its aspirations to gain power in Kabul, as it might well be under the Pakistani proposal for inclusive negotiations, it could join hands with its Pakistani counterparts to seek a limited version of “Pashtunistan,” based on an ideological version of Pashtun nationalism. The fact is that even a limited operational alliance between the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans would create a serious headache for Islamabad, and could even increase the risk of conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

To complicate matters further, Pakistan cannot expect to quash the TTP without Afghan cooperation. Faced with Pakistani pressure, the TTP will inevitably seek refuge in Afghanistan, and recent Pakistani actions cannot on their own seal the border between the two countries.

Afghanistan, of course, has no incentive to help Pakistan without a credible guarantee of non-interference from Islamabad, and the dynamic between these two countries also has implications for the United States, reducing its freedom to maneuver diplomatically. Having asked Pakistan to intervene in North Waziristan to eliminate al Qaeda and its proxies for years, the U.S. can only approve of the operation. Yet helping Pakistan get its way without obtaining any of the non-interference guarantees that the Afghans legitimately desire would diminish the potential for Afghan-Pakistani cooperation. This in turn would heighten the risk that terrorist sanctuaries could re-emerge, undermining more than a decade of counter-terrorism efforts.

Ultimately, the reality is that coalition forces along the border have been unable to stop Taliban infiltration, meaning it is highly improbable that Afghan forces will perform any better on their own. More likely, the security situation will deteriorate on both sides of the border. And given Pakistan’s current policy toward Afghanistan – and despite any official rhetoric to the contrary – the country is likely to view continuing low intensity conflict in Afghanistan as a necessary step.

Pakistan might suggest any new offensive is simply a response to recent events. But whatever the trigger, it is clear that there will be significant strategic ramifications.

This article was originally published in CNN.

About the Author

Frederic Grare

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program

Frédéric Grare was a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his research focuses on Indo-Pacific dynamics, the search for a security architecture, and South Asia Security issues.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    France, the Other Indo-Pacific Power

      Frederic Grare

  • Article
    What Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election Means for Foreign Policy

      Frederic Grare

Frederic Grare
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Frederic Grare
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran and the New Geopolitical Moment

    A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring Iran

    Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran’s Woes Aren’t Only Domestic

    The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.

      Armenak Tokmajyan

  • A municipal employee raises the US flag among those of other nations in Sharm el-Sheikh, as the Egyptian Red Sea resort town gets ready to receive international leaders, following a Gaza ceasefire agreement, on October 11, 2025.
    Article
    The Tragedy of Middle Eastern Politics

    The countries of the region have engaged in sustained competition that has tested their capacities and limitations, while resisting domination by rivals. Can a more stable order emerge from this maelstrom, and what would it require?

      • Mohamed Ali Adraoui

      Hamza Meddeb, Mohamed Ali Adraoui

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.